“Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”
Kirk Ciarrocca is (objectively) a Great hire
- Thread starter Ash_Hole
- Start date
If KC were the OC on those 2 Gleeson play calls resulting in interceptions and basically quit on those possessions by calling running plays, that would simply be pathetic. Is that Greg’s philosophy ? To be pathetic ?
Gleeson tried to extend drives with what should be low risk pass plays and got fired because they didn’t work. Either Schiano had a problem with good play calling or sacrificed Gleeson to protect his own reputation.
Gleeson tried to extend drives with what should be low risk pass plays and got fired because they didn’t work. Either Schiano had a problem with good play calling or sacrificed Gleeson to protect his own reputation.
It no longer has to. For better or worse, Greg hired an OC who favors a ground game this time. You think that’s a coincidence?
Lots to unpack. Is KC a ground game guy ? He was at MN because they had an excellent RB. But Some here say above all else he’s a QB guru.
Greg knew who he was hiring with Gleeson. He knew Gleeson came from a high scoring, creative team.
You can’t blame Gleeson for those interceptions. He wanted to convert important 3rd downs. His firing proved that GS preferred punting over trying to convert on 3rd down passing downs.
I do agree KC was hired bc Schiano realizes he’s (Schiano) only comfortable with a 75% ground game and that wasn’t Gleeson’s MO.
But, on those two INTs KC’s instinct would be to call exactly what Gleeson did. The preference to run/punt instead of trying to convert tells you all you need to know about GS.
there was another like him but 3-0 has him/her in hiding or using another handle complaining about something else.
Need to have NJ.com restart their RU FB forum and send the trolls to their natural habitat.
More than one. Trust me, they'll crawl out from under their collective rocks once we experience a setback.
I’m not blaming Gleeson for anything one way or the other. I’m just telling it like it is. That’s why he was canned when he was. It was inevitable by the end of the season but Greg wanted the ball to stay on the ground for that Indiana game. Right or wrong. We did win it but then lost Sam for the season.
Greg doesn’t like throws down the middle backed up in his own end zone. KC seems averse to them too seeing how we handled those possessions in the Temple game. Not all pass plays are the same. The throws we attempted in the Temple game backed in our end zone were extremely low risk for pick six. Evan’s throw in the Iowa game won’t happen from our own end zone with Kirk. It’s a high risk / reward gamble that we seem averse to. Look for us to gamble down the side lines every time though with time expiring in Q2. There - a pick isn’t going to be returned and the other team would have to quickly go the length to put more points on the board. That’s why we throw long balls there. It’s a philosophy thing. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong. It just is. Gleeson wasn’t a “scapegoat” as you say. Schiano truly disagreed with what he was preaching. You might not agree with Schiano there but no head coach should stick with an OC if they aren’t buying in. For Schiano, parting ways when he did was the right move.
I think this is also partially predicated on the fact that right now we just don't seem to have a receiver that can consistently get separation for that type of throw.
I hear you but it’s hard for me to believe Gleeson wasn’t buying in. How could he not ? What was he preaching ? He wouldn’t have lasted 2 games nevermind 2 and a half years if he wasn’t calling games exactly as Greg required. Greg blames the interceptions (losses) and fired Gleeson for good calls that didn’t work.
If Gleeson went off the reservation and did call plays Schiano explicitly didn’t allow in certain situations, then sure he needed to go. A HC can’t have that, obviously. Instead, I think it was only to deflect blame.
I promise you KC would call pass plays too in those two situations
How do you know Gleeson was calling plays contrary to Schiano’s philosophy, and for how long was that going on ?
agree with this in that no way is any OC we have going against the grain, Greg is too controlling. Anyone that thinks otherwise is blind or willfully ignorant. I'm not against uniformity in this regard as long as it works
Being the OC for 2.5 years, we can only assume Gleeson was calling plays as GS required. The alternative, that Gleeson was ‘preaching otherwise’ for years is impossible to believe. Greg would have corrected that immediately.
Therefore, ‘scapegoat’ is absolutely correct. Blamed for doing what he was asked to do all along.
The futility was obvious so he needed to make a PR move. Has nothing to do with OC ability (see Minnesota and Maryland games, after the firing).
Therefore, ‘scapegoat’ is absolutely correct. Blamed for doing what he was asked to do all along.
The futility was obvious so he needed to make a PR move. Has nothing to do with OC ability (see Minnesota and Maryland games, after the firing).
Last edited:
The philosophy hasn’t changed at all year to year. At least not yet. There is nothing different from a program/HC team offensive identity.
Agree. Which is why the Gleeson firing was for show. KC and SG both following the same GS script.
Yes, he's the wrongfully elected ruler of Wrongdovia, wrongfully recognized as the rueful writer of redundant recriminations regarding Rutgers offensive coaching recrudescence.
Seriously, though, I think, yes, Schiano had laid down guidelines on how he wanted the offensive strategy to go, and Gleeson (and now KC) have to work within those boundaries. But they both had the leeway in terms of how that was accomplished and what plays would be called. They're responsible for the play development and both fitting the players to it and fitting the plays to the talent available. KC seems to be doing a helluva lot better job at it than Gleeson. Furthermore, one of their primary responsibilities was QB development. Did you see our QB's getting better under Gleeson? I sure as hell didn't. I do see major improvement in Wimsatt, although he still sometimes backslides when he's under pressure.
Ok so you’re seeing KC is getting better play from GW now (#46 yards) than SG got from an injured GW last year and #0 who is a DIII QB talent ? And this is attributable to KC ? Got it. No wonder this place is mostly devoid of keen analysis.
Last edited:
Saturday won’t go well. Like it wouldn’t f for 100+ fbs teams
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. You're so predictable. And how did Wimsatt get injured last year? Oh, yeah, Gleeson ran him into the middle of the line.
And you also continue your hate for Noah Vedral. Again, so predictable.
Oh, KC hasn’t run GW straight into the line at all ? Are you just guessing to fit your narrative ? And he has him run outside too. If anything he’s more susceptible to injury the way he’s being used now.Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate. You're so predictable. And how did Wimsatt get injured last year? Oh, yeah, Gleeson ran him into the middle of the line.
And you also continue your hate for Noah Vedral. Again, so predictable.
Hate, hate, hate, hate. Schiano is the personification of all that is evil. He has converted Rutgers Stadium into Hell On Earth.
KC has NOT run Wimsatt into a stacked line as Gleeson did. These plays are far better schematically in taking advantage of Wimsatt's running ability. The use of the TE's, WR's and RB points to better designed plays than what we saw last year.
Put me in the camp disputing that KC has developed GW. However, overall I do agree the offense now seems functional and has performed well enough and I attribute that mostly (though perhaps incorrectly) to KC. GW still lacks touch and accuracy and while he certainly is running better which opens things up, we have no way of knowing if we didn't see more of that because of his injury or offensive line troubles last year. He arrived on campus a mobile QB.
I think the change happened after Temple… one game we threw 17 total passes. The media bashing our incompetent offense. The next game against Iowa we threw 50 passes. It was literally a 180. Obviously there’s no way to prove it either way but that’s what I think happened. From then on it seemed awkward between them on the side lines. I think the Nebraska game was the last straw.
It appears he’s made GW into a better game manager but Gavin will probably have to figure out the short game for us to have the same success against higher level defenses. That’s the open question. I have no problem with where Gavin is otherwise.
IMO there is absolutely no chance Gleeson or any other coach in the country college or pro breaks ranks and defies rules. It’s sure to get you fired, you won’t be endorsed for a new job, etc. So no, I cannot believe it. I think Greg just did it for show to appease the critics.
but of course I’m speculating. Maybe SG did defy Schiano.
but of course I’m speculating. Maybe SG did defy Schiano.
Last edited:
Gleeson had to be high during that nerbraska game . He deserved to be fired
I don’t think he “defied” him. I think after Temple he asked Schiano to “trust” him and Schiano agreed to give him more latitude to play a less conservative style even though that goes against his philosophy. It was 3 games (though OSU didn’t matter what we did). I just think that after Nebraska Greg decided we would’ve had a better chance in both games ( Iowa and Nebraska) sticking mostly with the ground game. He wanted to keep the ball on the ground for Indiana. That much was obvious. He decided the best way to make sure that happened was to do what he did. Not insist Gleeson stay on and call the game that way.
Similar threads
